This is a pretty radical view, and after reading it I intuitively thought that there must be logical fallacies in his argument, but I'm having trouble trying to pinpoint what exactly he is wrong about. What do you think about this?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: ...society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable.
quote:...society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness.
A logical argument can only be so good as the assumptions it starts out with. I seriously doubt these assumptions. I am not a man, so my perspective on the 'natural instincts of men' is limited. Still, I don't see evidence for this in the men in my life.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I also see a helluva lot of men whose nature is to make choices, whether good or ill. Pretty much all of them. A lot of them choose not to rape or engage in other jackassery, even if they might feel like it. But some of them do, anyway. Obviously.
I have yet to see a hungry lion refrain for its own purposes from eating a zebra. I conclude that somehow men are different from lions, and it likely has something to do with ability and inclination to make choices like this.
Most of 'em, anyway.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
the problem is that he's using the term "natural instincts" like there is one base set of consistent and non-contradictory natural instincts, when this is not the case. Our "instincts" are often in conflict with each other.
Not to mention that while it's important to understand our instincts, where our emotions and desires come from, they in themselves do not tell us the right or wrong of an action. Even if what he says were true, and men's instincts are shameful while women's are acceptable...that in itself provides no excuse for behavior we deem immoral.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
You know, I'm sitting here thinking about the analogy. About how the sort of round peg he describes just cannot be jammed into that kind of square hole, and about the inevitability of a certain amount of tooth-picking when a ravenous lion meets a shy zebra at a lonely watering spot.
And you know what? This will floor you: I must have walked past 10, 20, maybe even 30 men today. Not one of them raped me, nor even so much as tweeted me a picture of their genitals. Not one.
Must be sunspots.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or unusual lack of same. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Gee whillickers, rivka. It's just ... eerie.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
His "solution" is terrifying.
What separates men from animals, what makes us in a word, civilized, is that we're able to control our instinctual urges, and use them for positive rather than destructive purposes. The reason I don't run around raping women isn't because the law forbids it, it's because I'm a strong man who's in control of his body, and I choose not to. I'm far from unhappy.
The law exists to control weak, immoral men. To inspire by fear, and if necessary death or imprisonment, behavior that they are otherwise incapable of. You can't blame male sexuality as a whole for the actions of a few twisted individuals... his solution is comparable to advocating cutting off everyone's hands because some people use their hands to kill other people.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Keep in mind he is a humorist, and might just be stirring the pot to see what surfaces. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: You know, I'm sitting here thinking about the analogy. About how the sort of round peg he describes just cannot be jammed into that kind of square hole, and about the inevitability of a certain amount of tooth-picking when a ravenous lion meets a shy zebra at a lonely watering spot.
And you know what? This will floor you: I must have walked past 10, 20, maybe even 30 men today. Not one of them raped me, nor even so much as tweeted me a picture of their genitals. Not one.
Must be sunspots.
No, but 99% of those men more than likely have self satisfied those natural urges in the past couple of days. The act of which our society tells us is shameful.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
positive rather than destructive purposes
How many wars is our society fighting right now?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Keep in mind he is a humorist, and might just be stirring the pot to see what surfaces.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: How many wars is our society fighting right now?
This will probably spiral off into a huge political argument (which I'm not really interested in, or have the time for), but...
Isn't our present major war in Afghanistan (Iraq being mostly pacified, and us withdrawing steadily), the one that's theoretically about us putting an end to violent men who fly planes into buildings and so forth, an means of using our violent impulses to put an end to something incredibly destructive to society?
[ June 17, 2011, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. No, it's not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Explain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: =Isn't our present major war in Afghanistan (Iraq being mostly pacified, and us withdrawing steadily), the one that's theoretically about us putting an end to violent men who fly planes into buildings and so forth, an means of using our violent impulses to put an end to something incredibly destructive to society?
According to, uh, wwwwwwho?
Also: scott adams is a terribad troll, please don't pay any attention to him, literally ignore his blog entries
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's more of a theoretical argument. Stephan apparently thinks the fact we're currently fighting a war invalidates my point that we can control our instincts and use them for good purposes.
I suppose a smarter answer would just be to say if we couldn't control our instincts, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Imagine the centuries of cooperation between evil, base, raping, warlike Men it's taken to arrive at the Internet. It's amazing, I know.
But I think war itself can be a society's way of curbing the instinct for violence into something that is, in the long run, beneficial for society. i.e, we supposedly attacked Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban, who were harboring Al-Qaeda, who were working very hard to destroy our society. Do you dispute this?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: No, but 99% of those men more than likely have self satisfied those natural urges in the past couple of days. The act of which our society tells us is shameful.
Masturbation? Is this what you are referring to as shameful?
With all due respect, sir, you are hanging out with the wrong people/news sources/literature/surgeon generals.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there's multiple issues with this hypothesis, and the chief two things I can come up with like right off the top of my head is
1. there's a lot of psychological supposition here in terms of 'curbing the instinct for violence' as if we could study violent tendencies mechanistically and determine that we can use wars to 'offgas' that violence/violent tendencies and just make it go away somehow. like afghanistan is some giant pressure relief valve that makes us all more mellow towards anything not related to the war. and yes, that's what would have to be the product if it were truly, as supposed 'society's way of curbing the instinct for violence'
2. the afghanistan war has been, if anything, actively detrimental and inciting of that which it was apparently being used to 'control,' and now we have a legacy of torture on our hands. I mean, if this is supposed to be us 'controlling our instincts' it's like the most counterproductive example I can really think of.
So many questions and gaps this theoretical argument poses. so, so many. I see no reason why it could be said it has predictive or explanatory power.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Scott Adams is such a funny little man. (CT is actually much funnier, at least in this thread.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Masturbation? Is this what you are referring to as shameful?
With all due respect, sir, you are hanging out with the wrong people
You may disagree with the very idea, but insulting those that don't was entirely uncalled for. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'you shouldn't masturbate' is actually a pretty high ranking indicator on the WHOOP WHOOP CRAZYTOWN ALERT
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Out of curiosity, are you insulting a significant portion of the Hatrack population on purpose, or on accident?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The idea that society in general still thinks of masturbation as shameful would indicate a fairly narrow and sheltered exposure to society in general.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: With all due respect, sir, you are hanging out with the wrong people
You may disagree with the very idea, but insulting those that don't was entirely uncalled for.
My apologies for giving offense.
It may (or may not) make a difference that I distinguish between believing it is an act one should refrain from doing for religious reasons and believing the act of it ought to cause the reaction in people to which I was responding, taken in full context of the discussion.
I think we have all sorts of reasons as humans for restraining our biologies. Some are good, some are ill. I think if utter shame for feeling a very basic biologic process and addressing it privately without physical harm is troubling to someone to this extent***, then yes, they are likely not in the right context for them.
We may disagree in this. Truly, I am so sorry if this gives offense, and I do respect your right to disagree (and to advocate for that).
---
***that is, as kmboots noted, to the extent it is believed that society in general holds that person to be shamed
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The idea that society in general still thinks of masturbation as shameful would indicate a fairly narrow and sheltered exposure to society in general.
Sheltered can be different than "the wrong kind of people."
I understand the breeziness of CT's response (I imagine it was lighthearted because she didn't want an earnest discussion of the issue, which often leads to intractable opinions dominating discussion), but just because the people you associate with think masturbation is morally wrong doesn't make them either the wrong kind of people or crazy (Samp's assertion notwithstanding).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Folks are free to disagree, but I would say that people who make one ashamed of doing things which cause no harm to anyone could very well be the wrong kind of people for that person.
And I am reminded of one of my favorite Heinlein quotes: "Masturbation is cheap, clean, convenient, and free of any possibility of wrongdoing - and you don't have to go home in the cold. But it's lonely.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I understand the breeziness of CT's response (I imagine it was lighthearted because she didn't want an earnest discussion of the issue, which often leads to intractable opinions dominating discussion) ...
Thanks for the charitable read. You didn't have to, and you did.
I was inappropriately breezy about this topic -- posting here -- any charitable read notwithstanding. I don't know what to do about it other than note it, apologize for the offense, and make sure I don't do so here again.
---
Added: that wasn't meant to be snippy, just thoughtful. In reading it over after posting, I could see how it might be interpreted otherwise.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I understand the breeziness of CT's response (I imagine it was lighthearted because she didn't want an earnest discussion of the issue, which often leads to intractable opinions dominating discussion) ...
Thanks for the charitable read. You didn't have to, and you did.
I was inappropriately breezy about this topic -- posting here -- any charitable read notwithstanding. I don't know what to do about it other than note it, apologize for the offense, and make sure I don't do so here again.
---
Added: that wasn't meant to be snippy, just thoughtful. In reading it over after posting, I could see how it might be interpreted otherwise.
I feel your approach was entirely appropriate, gracious (as always). I appreciated both your forthrightness and your apology.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Folks are free to disagree, but I would say that people who make one ashamed of doing things which cause no harm to anyone could very well be the wrong kind of people for that person.
I disagree. Besides my religious beliefs about what harm is done, I believe it also has negative impact on couples' sexual relationships (both emotionally and physiologically). Even when not in a relationship, establishing habitual patterns that persist can cause harm, both to the individual and to their potential partners, in the sense of limiting future happiness.
That's all just justificational, though. My real issue with it (unsurprisingly) is religious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you are free to do so. If you are likely to make me (or try to make me) believe that it is shameful, you are probably not the right person for me to hang out with.
On the other hand, you aren't likely to want to hang out with me if I try to make you believe that your beliefs are silly. So we're even. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you generally avoid hanging out with people who disagree with you on what is right and wrong, or is this a special case?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Disagreeing is fine; shaming me isn't.
ETA: As an addition to that thought. I am an old, cranky woman. Shaming me is hard. Shaming vulnerable young people is easy and they should avoid such situations.
Again, I am talking about shame for doing things which cause no harm to others.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you differentiate between trying to shame you and believing that it is shameful. Also, between believing that it is shameful and believing that it is wrong?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depends on the behavior and context.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When I was 12 years old I asked my Episcopalian minister if masturbation was a sin. He told me "Not for a man who is missing his wife."
I was 12.
Thanks a lot asshat!
quote:I believe it also has negative impact on couples' sexual relationships (both emotionally and physiologically). Even when not in a relationship, establishing habitual patterns that persist can cause harm, both to the individual and to their potential partners, in the sense of limiting future happiness.
This is true, as a possibility, if that masturbation (in or out of a relationship) is habitual and coupled with a porn addiction or a fantasy life which precludes realistic encounters. But not true for the vast majority of people who just have longings which are not currently available.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
This conversation started out more about shaming people who think masturbation is wrong (or at least calling them crazy). When was the last time on Hatrack that anybody said "Shame on you for thinking masturbation is OK"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Somewhere around 90% of adults admit to masturbation. I have a hard time taking seriously the notion that we are all "gravely disordered".
ETA: I thought it started with Stephen believing that society believed masturbation to be shameful.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I work as a therapist in treating sexual addictions, and the incidence of shame regarding anything sexual is a much higher percentage of the population than seems apparent. Sex is one of the most secretive issues among people, and a large degree of that is due to cultural beliefs regarding sex.
It is not that masturbation is defined as shameful by a large number of people in the population. Quite the opposite is true, given that most medical professionals and many other experts define masturbation as a healthy activity. The source of shame comes from how we deal with sex as a society in general. Sex is completely polarized, in large measure. On the one hand, we are bombarded with messages regarding sex, such as, "do whatever feels good", or sex is a form of entertainment, or women are expected to be as sexually appealing as possible for the sake of men, etc. On the other hand, largely from traditional/religious populations, we are mainly told what not to do, i.e., don't have premarital sex, don't masturbate, don't talk about sex, you should feel shameful if you do any of these things, etc.
This polarization distracts significantly from creating a safe and healthy environment for people to actually learn how to deal with their sexuality. I constantly see individuals develop sexual addictions, who came from decent families, but whose families just didn't talk about sex. Dad maybe looked at pornography, but nobody talked about it. Mom or dad maybe had "the talk" wit their kids once or twice. Parents are embarrassed when kids explore sexuality or experiment with masturbation. Parents are ashamed of their own sexual mistakes, so they are kept highly secretive. These types of issues happen all of the time in decent families, because the large majority of families do not discuss how to be a sexual being. Family rules such as: We joke about sex, we talk about sexual liberation and freedom, we watch sexual stuff, we tell our kids what not to do sexually, we shame them when they do sexual things, etc., are quite common. But rare are the families that actually TALK about sex in all of its aspects, and help kids understand it is a part of their being, and that there are both negative and positive consequences to sexual choices, depending on the situation.
The lack of that type of safe discussion in families is a large source of hidden shame regarding sexuality, including masturbation. And I might add that this crosses both religious and non-religious family systems. I see atheists who have just as much shame about masturbating as a religious person. The religious person may have a religious belief to cite for his shame regarding masturbation, but the atheist believes masturbation is healthy, yet still feels shame about it. This is because sexual shame is cultural.
And just to be clear, I am not implying that this type of shame is universal. I am giving examples of what is statistically common, not what applies to everyone. Some other countries are much better at discussing these issues in a healthy manner within families. But so many Americans are perfectly fine to joke about sex and engage in sexual behaviors, but would drop dead before having regular conversations with their kids about how to be sexual in the context of emotions, relationships, intimacy, etc.
It is interesting to me that the most common sources of shame are not what people are told NOT to do, but instead what people don't talk about. Certainly overt shame, such as abuse, has a more severe impact, but the shame of secrecy has a more widespread impact. As children, we are very sensitive to what our parents do not talk about. We pick up quickly on the unspoken rules about what topics are acceptable and not acceptable.
Simply put, if you don't talk about sexuality in all of its aspects with your kids, then when they start feeling sexual, they won't talk about it very much. And it is a shame, when urges as natural and powerful as sexuality, are not completely safe to discuss with those you trust most, because the consequences of secrecy on such an issue is devastating to a culture over time.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"The act of which society tells us is shameful."
Which is an accusation, at least how I read it. Who came out and said shame on you for masturbating?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Marlozhan, thanks for taking the time and mental energy to put that out. I am rereading it, and I find it quite helpful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Out of curiosity, are you insulting a significant portion of the Hatrack population on purpose, or on accident?
Masturbation is okay, and it's not shameful, and it's messed up (and hopeless, over time) to tell people that it's a shameful thing that should never be done. It's silly and crazy to make people think that it's wrong and fill them with shame and repression of that part of human sexuality.
Right now, it's just a statement of my opinion, one I'm not hesitant to share. If you want to make it a discussion between us, I could say you're perfectly welcome to make a case why I'm wrong and that people shouldn't masturbate, but I expect a predictable declining.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: This conversation started out more about shaming people who think masturbation is wrong (or at least calling them crazy). When was the last time on Hatrack that anybody said "Shame on you for thinking masturbation is OK"?
QFT
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The idea that society in general still thinks of masturbation as shameful would indicate a fairly narrow and sheltered exposure to society in general.
Then why can't it be taught as a safe alternative in school?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
This is a pretty radical view, and after reading it I intuitively thought that there must be logical fallacies in his argument, but I'm having trouble trying to pinpoint what exactly he is wrong about. What do you think about this?
First of all, it's in a category called "General Nonsense". Second of all, the guy is a humorist. Third of all, yes, society today has gotten more and more restricted of "natural male behavior" as Adams describes it. It didn't used to be that way. And things were pretty bad. So yes, that sort of bad behavior is socially less and less acceptable. Too frakkin' bad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Right now, it's just a statement of my opinion, one I'm not hesitant to share. If you want to make it a discussion between us, I could say you're perfectly welcome to make a case why I'm wrong and that people shouldn't masturbate, but I expect a predictable declining
Really? The only way you'll stop calling people who think it's wrong crazy is to convince you that that it actually is wrong? It's not possible for you to disagree with the idea without insulting those that hold it?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I have a hard time believing he was just trolling with this. I just reread it assuming it was all a joke, but he seems to be trying too hard to be rational for it to be a caricature.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's a big difference between calling people crazy and saying that a particular belief they espouse is crazy and should be discontinued. If I actually thought "anyone who believes this is crazy" I wouldn't bother trying to discuss it with them, I'd just call them crazy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: "The act of which society tells us is shameful."
Which is an accusation, at least how I read it. Who came out and said shame on you for masturbating?
I did not understand Stephen's comment to be limited to what is written on Hatrack but what he feels is the attitude of society as a whole.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have a hard time believing he was just trolling with this. I just reread it assuming it was all a joke, but he seems to be trying too hard to be rational for it to be a caricature.
He trolls. He's big into trolling. He does this now. The odds of him being serious here are actually pretty low!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If it's just one particular belief and not the whole person I thought was crazy, I'd take pains to make this clear. Assuming they know this just because you're still discussing it with them is expecting them to read your mind.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: "The act of which society tells us is shameful."
Which is an accusation, at least how I read it. Who came out and said shame on you for masturbating?
I did not understand Stephen's comment to be limited to what is written on Hatrack but what he feels is the attitude of society as a whole.
I agree, but then Porter indicated exception to CT's and Samp's comments, and a strawman got dogpiled. I was trying to defend the strawman.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Then why can't it be taught as a safe alternative in school?
Do schools need to tell kids how to do everything? What good are parents then? And don't kids figure this stuff out on their own anyway? By that logic, being religious goes against society because we don't teach that in school. Not anymore, anyway. In fact, we don't teach a lot of things in school, so are they inherintly evil or wrong?
This argument is silly. Who cares if you do your thing by yourself in your room, especially if you're single? It's not hurting anyone.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I was trying to defend the strawman.
A bold maneuver. Those guys go up in flames at the drop of a (straw) hat! Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm just thinking of his poor straw family.
Don't they suffer enough?!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, I was going to quote a website on the health benefits of masturbating, so I did a search...I go to check out the wikipage...and they have graphic pictures...I mean...graphic. I was surprised, no warning or anything, just close ups pictures of people masturbating!
So, do any of you people who find masturbation a sin disagree that it is medically beneficial?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm just thinking of his poor straw family.
Don't they suffer enough?!
Creeping mildew is just not to be spoken of.
(Although I hear it occurs even in the best of families. Do you know they don't even make you stay home from straw preschool anymore if you have it?)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I actually thought "anyone who believes this is crazy" I wouldn't bother trying to discuss it with them, I'd just call them crazy.
Your post saying simply "'you shouldn't masturbate' is actually a pretty high ranking indicator on the WHOOP WHOOP CRAZYTOWN ALERT " seems a lot closer to just calling them crazy than actually discussing it with them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So, do any of you people who find masturbation a sin disagree that it is medically beneficial?
Yes, my understanding is that frequent male orgasm decreases the chances of prostrate cancer later in life.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Come on Samp, you know what you said was taken as an inditment of people's religious beliefs, and with reason. If you personally find the idea to be crazy, that is one thing, but it is offensive to say that people who think so are "a pretty high ranking indicator on the WHOOP WHOOP CRAZYTOWN ALERT".
Bite the bullet and say sorry and move on to being more crafty in your calling them crazy.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm just thinking of his poor straw family.
Don't they suffer enough?!
Creeping mildew is just not to be spoken of.
(Although I hear it occurs even in the best of families. Do you know they don't even make you stay home from straw preschool anymore if you have it?)
Straw kids should be careful not to touch heads on the playground.
And how could anyone think Mr. Ed was anything but a horror show?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm just thinking of his poor straw family.
Don't they suffer enough?!
Creeping mildew is just not to be spoken of.
(Although I hear it occurs even in the best of families. Do you know they don't even make you stay home from straw preschool anymore if you have it?)
Straw kids should be careful not to touch heads on the playground.
Or anything else. Just because it isn't shameful doesn't mean we should be doing it during recess.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I actually thought "anyone who believes this is crazy" I wouldn't bother trying to discuss it with them, I'd just call them crazy.
Your post saying simply "'you shouldn't masturbate' is actually a pretty high ranking indicator on the WHOOP WHOOP CRAZYTOWN ALERT " seems a lot closer to just calling them crazy than actually discussing it with them.
1. I corrected the assumption that I was, and you now know that I was not.
2. My offer to actually discuss it is there. It's on the table. Do you want to offer an argument as for why people should be taught not to masturbate?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just because it isn't shameful doesn't mean we should be doing it during recess.
That has been my motto since 1982.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The straw preschool really should have private enclosed areas for that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wait why am I trying to argue that I don't know you're all crazy.
you're all losing the strawman-american vote, btw
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My offer to actually discuss it is there. It's on the table. Do you want to offer an argument as for why people should be taught not to masturbate?
No, I have no interest in having that discussion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Seriously, it is simple...it is a tenet of their religion (arguably) that masturbation is a sin. I'm sure some other people who believe this have other, more personally reasons why they believe that as well.
I say arguably because of the bible verse, which I vaguely remember, something like, "It is better to plant your seed in the belly of whore then to let it hit the ground." Which to me says more don't yank it outdoors and fling your juices about, but hey, that's me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just because it isn't shameful doesn't mean we should be doing it during recess.
That has been my motto since 1982.
Ssshhh. I thought we weren't going to talk about what happened that spring.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seriously, it is simple...it is a tenet of their religion (arguably) that masturbation is a sin. I'm sure some other people who believe this have other, more personally reasons why they believe that as well.
I say arguably because of the bible verse, which I vaguely remember, something like, "It is better to plant your seed in the belly of whore then to let it hit the ground." Which to me says more don't yank it outdoors and fling your juices about, but hey, that's me.
No. You're putting forth an argument that Bible may or may not teach that masturbation is a sin.
It is not really arguable, however, what my religion teaches about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My offer to actually discuss it is there. It's on the table. Do you want to offer an argument as for why people should be taught not to masturbate?
No, I have no interest in having that discussion.
Okay! Like I said, anticipated. Then we can end framed talk about who I am intentionally or accidentally insulting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
m_p_h...I'm not a biblical scholar by any means...is there another, more definitive verse against slapity happity you could furnish us with?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seriously, it is simple...it is a tenet of their religion (arguably) that masturbation is a sin. I'm sure some other people who believe this have other, more personally reasons why they believe that as well.
I say arguably because of the bible verse, which I vaguely remember, something like, "It is better to plant your seed in the belly of whore then to let it hit the ground." Which to me says more don't yank it outdoors and fling your juices about, but hey, that's me.
That isn't from the Bible, though it may be referring to the story of Onan. His sin was considerably more than masturbation (disobedience, deception, failure to care for people under his protection), but, yes, it is often used as a scriptural admonition against self gratification. In truth, prohibitions against masturbation are more complicated and not pinned to a particular scriptural reference.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You are right on both counts, not in the bible, referencing Onan...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I expressed earlier some reasons why I think masturbation is socially harmful. I also think it depersonalizes the sexual experience and contributes to selfishness, both sexually and otherwise, within relationships. I also believe there's debate about the positive physiological (rather than psychological) effects of masturbation for men.
I don't know that those negative effects (which I understand aren't universal, but which I think are more prevalent than are acknowledged) are sufficient reason why people should not "be taught masturbation." I do feel though that the effects I've listed are both real and harmful.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: m_p_h...I'm not a biblical scholar by any means...is there another, more definitive verse against slapity happity you could furnish us with?
No.
But "things that are clearly taught in the scriptures" is only a subset of what my religion teaches.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What is your religion m_p_h?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't know that those negative effects (which I understand aren't universal, but which I think are more prevalent than are acknowledged) are sufficient reason why people should not "be taught masturbation." I do feel though that the effects I've listed are both real and harmful.
And where does this understanding of the negative effects come from? Are they studies? Plenty show that masturbation has a positive effect in general on the sexual satisfaction of couples, in part because it gives them a tool to manage when your partner's sex drive is different than yours, both in the short and long term. (That, and it tends to improve staying power in men, the result of which is not really what I would call 'selfish.')
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called the Mormons.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay m_p_h, so neither the old nor new testaments specifically ban masturbation, correct? So, does the BoM? Where are these teachings? I'm not claiming they aren't there, I'm asking because I don't know, as I am not a Mormon or a Christian or anything which is easily classified or has a holy book.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be willing to bet that all the harm caused by masturbation since the beginning of time comes nowhere near the harm caused by convincing young boys and girls with normal urges that they are "gravely disordered".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would be willing to bet that all the harm caused by masturbation since the beginning of time comes nowhere near the harm caused by convincing young boys and girls with normal urges that they are "gravely disordered".
Ta-Da!
Strangely enough, replace 'masturbation' with 'being gay' and it works just the same.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, the Book of Mormon, nor any of the other LDS-specific scriptures mention it.
Like I said, my religion doesn't only teach things that are clearly taught in scriptures.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I think it's also important to acknowledge that there is a fundemental difference of opinion in the harm that masturbation does. To my knowledge, most Christians who find something shameful in masturbation believe that it harms everybody that person interacts with. Period. There have been allusions to the fact that it doesn't hurt anybody, but this is where there's a disconnect with people arguing against masturbation.
CS Lewis once had this analogy about ships interacting with each other. He defined morality as having two parts - That which governs where ships can sail so as to not crash into each other (Being respectful, not stealing, not murdering, loving your neighbor, giving to the poor ships, etc.), and that which governs how a ship is run (Sexual abstinance until marriage, not masturbating, diatary laws, internal discipline). He goes on to say how much of society today places stock in the first set of morality, but not on the second. But here's the rub - He argues, and I think a lot of Christians who find masturbation to be morally wrong would agree, that the second form of morality directly influences a ship's ability to follow the first. That is to say, these people (And myself) believe there are some self-regulatory morals that, if not followed, will inhibit our ability to interact peacefully and lovingly with other people.
I don't believe masturbation is one of these, for the record. I rather like it, and don't feel any sort of conviction about doing it, nor do I feel there's a significant moral gain from refraining from it. However, that other people believe it moral to refrain from it seems hardly crazy to me. We just disagree on one particular, self-regulatory rule.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You are right on both counts, not in the bible, referencing Onan...
Hatrack hasn't changed much. We STILL can turn any conversation into an onanism thread.
Papa Moose would be proud, not shamed. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Ah, Mormons. That explains it.
They also believe that drinking tea and coffee is a sin, which isn't really in the traditional New Testament Bible, but they still don't do it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Every religion is different.
Masturbation is also a sin according to Muslims because of their holy book, too, so it's not just Mormons.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Masterbation has some residual societal pressure on "not" doing it, otherwise everyone from ages 9 to 20 wouldn't be denying doing it for fear of seeming maladjusted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:In 1837, a health food nut preached sermons about the dangers of masturbation and soon invented a cracker to help ward off those dangers. If you ate your cracker in the morning, the blandness of the cracker was supposed to lower your lust all day so that you would not have “vital fluid” expending urges.
That man’s name was Sylvester Graham and his cracker, the Graham cracker...
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Like I said, my religion doesn't only teach things that are clearly taught in scriptures.
That's good news. That means it's most likely going to be de-emphasized and eventually abandoned.
And much faster than it would if there was anything in scriptures to point to definitively.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
That is the coolest thing I've heard all day, Stone!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: To my knowledge, most Christians who find something shameful in masturbation believe that it harms everybody that person interacts with. Period.
I am going to try to be very careful here, both because I do not want to titillate and because I don't want to imply anything, only ask (and the question is directed generally):
Masturbation (link is to dictionary) is the stimulation of one's own (or another's) sexual organs by hand, or by another means other than intercourse. There is nothing in using the term itself technically that necessitates it be done as a solitary endeavor, or that it be done in a way fully divorced from intercourse -- e.g., it certainly can be done together as foreplay before mutual intercourse.
That is, it can be done by couples to themselves in the presence of one another or to each other as a part of intended intercourse.
I am just having the most difficult time in understanding why this would necessarily be considered shameful [even in the religions I am aware are represented in this current conversation].
The question: are we using the term "masturbation" differently -- is there a private or more isolated meaning that I do not understand?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Despite the dictionary, I'm pretty sure the word "masturbation" is generally accepted as a solo act, and the phrase "mutual masturbation" describes the act with back up singers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That means it's most likely going to be de-emphasized and eventually abandoned.
Didn't you start a big argument a few months back with your predictions about the future changes in Judaism?
I don't feel to debate it, but I'll just say that I disagree with you on what the future likely holds for my religion. Your scenario seems quite unlikely to me
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
m_p_h, if the banning of masturbation (and caffeine consumption?) isn't found in your holy scripts, where did it get it's basis?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: m_p_h, if the banning of masturbation (and caffeine consumption?) isn't found in your holy scripts, where did it get it's basis?
Joseph Smith. At least I would assume so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:That means it's most likely going to be de-emphasized and eventually abandoned.
Didn't you start a big argument a few months back with your predictions about the future changes in Judaism?
Which ones? There's also Catholicism's expected changes on the issue of condoms and AIDS, that's a good one. (note that I was talking about that well before the Vatican started entering the confusion phase on that one)
quote:I don't feel to debate it
Well, of course not.
quote:Your scenario seems quite unlikely to me
Also unsurprising. To the extent that I'd actually be speechlessly astounded if this wasn't the case.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You would be mistaken. AFAIK, Joseph Smith never said anything about it.
But not terribly far off. Our leaders for many years, who we believe to be prophets of God like Abraham and Moses were, have been quite clear on the subject for many years.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Which profit said it (what era, the name would be meaningless to me), and do you know what reason he gave?
I hope you don't mind my curiosity as to your beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, there are a lot of religious traditions and doctrines that are not based in Scripture. Not just for Mormons. Catholics in particular have other bases for doctrine. Sola scriptura the idea the Scripture alone is the only basis for doctrine is a principle of the Protestant Reformation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: I am just having the most difficult time in understanding why this would necessarily be considered shameful [even in the religions I am aware are represented in this current conversation].
The question: are we using the term "masturbation" differently -- is there a private or more isolated meaning that I do not understand?
It's masturbation as you know it.
Short copy: the LDS's teaching on the matter is that it is specifically forbidden by the Lord, and that one of the big reasons why is because it is a gateway drug to more grotesque sins such as homosexuality, which is described as an unholy sex perversion.
Quite clearly it's stated you are to avoid masturbation (even mutual) because it can drive people towards homosexual acts, among other justifications.
Oral sex and anal sex are also right out, even as part of activities which lead to 'appropriate' intercourse. Either act is 'impure and unholy.'
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know of it ever being mentioned by the church leaders earlier than the 1960s, but I've never looked for it earlier than that, either.
The rationale is that that sex is a holy and sacred thing, and as such, should only be expressed in the proper way. Which is between a husband and wife.
Samp's "short copy" of LDS teachings on the matter is wrong in almost every respect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Samp's "short copy" of LDS teachings on the matter is wrong in almost every respect.
Why do you say you don't want to discuss this, and then keep jumping in and discussing it in the form of "you're wrong."
"The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." - Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church
"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord."
"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." - Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church - Including Gordon B. Hinckley.
"Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others whose “norms” are lower. Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice. Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.
Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white." -Kimball
"Masturbation can be described as manipulating one’s own sexual organs to produce sexual excitement. Such practice is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others." -Kimball
ometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white. (Ensign, November 1980, p.94) [Masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation--practiced with another person of the same sex--and thence into total homosexuality. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.282)
Now, are any of these quotations not actually real?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would be willing to bet that all the harm caused by masturbation since the beginning of time comes nowhere near the harm caused by convincing young boys and girls with normal urges that they are "gravely disordered".
I'm not sure where the "gravely disordered" language comes from. That's certainly not what I'm planning on telling my kids when they ask me, or when I talk to them, about masturbation. I agree that framing it thus would be quite harmful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would be willing to bet that all the harm caused by masturbation since the beginning of time comes nowhere near the harm caused by convincing young boys and girls with normal urges that they are "gravely disordered".
I'm not sure where the "gravely disordered" language comes from. That's certainly not what I'm planning on telling my kids when they ask me, or when I talk to them, about masturbation. I agree that framing it thus would be quite harmful.
I am glad to hear it. "Gravely disordered" and "gravely immoral" would be Catholic language.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There are a lot of goodhearted, clear thinking, kind and responsible religious people in the world.
That being said, why the heck would god care what someone does with their bits? I mean, have you ever been to the monkey cage at the zoo...they are rubbing out banana paste all day long! I just don't think it is important, especially compared to things which do matter, helping each other and loving each other and not hurting each other.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am glad to hear it. "Gravely disordered" and "gravely immoral" would be Catholic language.
Still? You know, I wouldn't be surprised if they've officially backed off from that wording by now.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Samp-
I don't know whether the quotes you've provided from church authorities are authentic or not. It does seem that you are misusing the term "Official Declaration." Other internet sources I've found for the statements (most making points similar to yours, none linking back to original documents) make more clear that these are either personal communications or policy statements, both of which are interpreted (for the purpose of determining doctrine) quite differently than Official Declarations.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I wonder if the Catholic church has ever described anything as "triflingly disordered" or "barely immoral".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"It is not a sin to kill a Muslim, it is barely immoral."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, I think that God does expect more from us than from monkeys, but agree with what I think is your larger point.*
Samp, could be. I hope so. Of course, what the Vatican says officially and what the Church believes are not always the same and people's understanding of both is often wildly diverse.
IMO, the Vatican lost any moral authority it might once have had on the subject of the sexual practices of consenting adults when it condoned the rape of children.
*That was regarding your earlier post. As far as I know, the Vatican does not condone the murder of anyone these days.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why do you say you don't want to discuss this
I said that I had no interest in trying to convince you that masturbation is wrong (I mean, what would be the point?), and that I had no interest in debating with you why I disagree with your predictions about the future teachings of my religion.
quote:and then keep jumping in and discussing it in the form of "you're wrong."
Because you keep interjecting into the conversation I've been having with Wolf things about my religion that are counter-factual to my understanding of my religion.
quote:Now, are any of these quotations not actually real?
I have no specific knowledge of any of those quotes. I do note, however, that the ones that most strongly support what you claimed earlier are the ones with the weakest sources. Two of the quotes claim "Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church" as their source. There have only been two documents that we call "Official Declaration", and your quotes come from neither of them.
I'll also note that just because something was said by a church leader (or even less, somebody who would later become a church leader) does not necessarily make it part of the teachings or doctrine of the church.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Samp-
I don't know whether the quotes you've provided from church authorities are authentic or not. It does seem that you are misusing the term "Official Declaration." Other internet sources I've found for the statements (most making points similar to yours, none linking back to original documents) make more clear that these are either personal communications or policy statements, both of which are interpreted (for the purpose of determining doctrine) quite differently than Official Declarations.
Ok, I'll keep that in mind, and see what changes that has to the veracity of the statements. Is there anything to indicate that these statements are fraudulently attributed to the church officials? That's more important (and I don't put it past the world at large).
But, take for instance: http://i.imgur.com/rAGdc.jpg — if any part of this is not the truth according to the church, why would it be said here, regardless as to whether or not it holds status as an "Official Declaration?" Was it wrong? Has it changed since then? I think these are all good questions.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
mr_porteiro_head,
I have no wish to ask you detailed questions which would likely be uncomfortable for both of us. I do want to clarify that I am getting the sense that we may have been talking past one another, and you may have misunderstood what I meant in conversation, as I may have misunderstood you.
That's all.
---
[edit]
[ June 17, 2011, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because you keep interjecting into the conversation I've been having with Wolf things about my religion that are counter-factual to my understanding of my religion.
Okay, then at least I've got you discussing it after all!
quote:I'll also note that just because something was said by a church leader (or even less, somebody who would later become a church leader) does not necessarily make it part of the teachings or doctrine of the church.
Let's say, for sake of argument, we can confirm that Kimball actually said "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white." If this is 'counter-factual' to the church's teachings now, why? Was Kimball wrong and this was printed anyway? Was he made wrong later?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's. To some extent his belief reflected a prevailing belief about masturbation and homosexuality in much of the church, but the church manuals dealing with homosexuality no longer prescribe any sort of link between the two things.
In short, the church leadership does not believe that homosexuality comes from masturbation in any way shape or form.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is there anything to indicate that these statements are fraudulently attributed to the church officials?
I have no way to verify the accuracy nor fraudulence of the statements labeled as "Official Declarations" in your post.
quote:But, take for instance: http://i.imgur.com/rAGdc.jpg — if any part of this is not the truth according to the church, why would it be said here, regardless as to whether or not it holds status as an "Official Declaration?" Was it wrong? Has it changed since then? I think these are all good questions.
Same here. I have no way of knowing if this letter is accurate or not.
What I do know is that I have been an active member of this church for all of my life, and I have never been taught or instructed that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's. To some extent his belief reflected a prevailing belief about masturbation and homosexuality in much of the church, but the church manuals dealing with homosexuality no longer prescribe any sort of link between the two things.
In short, the church leadership does not believe that homosexuality comes from masturbation in any way shape or form.
Okay, so is the church going to come out and say that Kimball was wrong and that this statement was in error? And what will be the justification behind that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: hat I do know is that I have been an active member of this church for all of my life, and I have never been taught or instructed that.
Then, let's try this. YOU tell ME what the church's official teaching is. Failing knowledge of that, tell me what you think it is. Does Mormonism teach that oral sex is as acceptable as vaginal sex?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Okay, so is the church going to come out and say that Kimball was wrong and that this statement was in error?
I can't imagine the church leadership thinking that there is a need to do so.
As far as I know, the only official teaching about oral sex by the LDS church is that it is a sin to do so out of wedlock.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The church does have a public relations department. They might be able to tell you if such a statement is forthcoming.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Samp-
Here's an interesting discussion among BYU students in an online forum struggling with the question of how to interpret some of the quotes. At least one of them says he looked back and found the original sources.
I don't particularly doubt that those statements were made. They are similar to other statements about sexuality from that era in church history. All statements since that time seem to indicate that the issue is not one on which the church renders judgment, but that individuals should approach the issue with sensitivity both to their own feelings and those of their spouses. A precursor of this policy can been seen in the letter you linked in the line "Husbands and wives...can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord."
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's.
Wait a minute.
If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?
And if we were to go back in time to when kimball was prophet, and he says it, is it fair to say that this is the mormon church's position on the issue?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, as far as you know m_p_h, is masturbation okay within a wedlock, or just plain out?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's.
Wait a minute.
If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?
And if we were to go back in time to when kimball was prophet, and he says it, is it fair to say that this is the mormon church's position on the issue?
Not really, in either case. Statements by church leaders, even the current Prophet, are not automatically considered official church positions or doctrines or cannon or ...
<edit>To agree with MPH's statement below. Setting matters. But I don't think even statements in say General Conference (the most formal setting) would automatically become "doctrine" and certainly not "cannon." Maybe I could be persuaded of "official position."</edit>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?
It depends. Who did he say it to? What was the situation? Was he giving his personal opinion, or was he speaking officially? Etc..
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, as far as you know m_p_h, is masturbation okay within a wedlock, or just plain out?
If you mean what you described earlier as mutual masturbation, that would be for the couple to decide on their own.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about a married man, who is away from his wife, thinking of his wife and missing her...which was what the Episcopalian preacher told me was okay when I was 12.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's. To some extent his belief reflected a prevailing belief about masturbation and homosexuality in much of the church, but the church manuals dealing with homosexuality no longer prescribe any sort of link between the two things.
In short, the church leadership does not believe that homosexuality comes from masturbation in any way shape or form.
Okay, so is the church going to come out and say that Kimball was wrong and that this statement was in error? And what will be the justification behind that?
There's no need to officially declare Kimball was mistaken, is there? They instruct the leadership that that idea is no longer to be suggested by church leaders, and replace it with more accurate instructions.
I mean if it came down to it and a member of the church in an interview said, "My sons is masturbating and I'm afraid he'll turn gay because that's what Pres. Kimball said about masturbation." there's probably a good chance the priesthood leader would say something along the lines, "Well he had his opinions on the matter, but they are not gospel."
I know it's a bit confusing but for Mormons, there are some specific circumstances that make something the prophet says, the mind of God on the matter. I haven't seen those circumstances in this instance, it's actually quite rare.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary: President Kimball certainly subscribed to the belief that masturbation lead to homosexuality, but he hasn't been the prophet since the 80's.
Wait a minute.
If a present prophet said the same thing today in response to a question about it, would it be unfair to say that it could be called a teaching of the church?
And if we were to go back in time to when kimball was prophet, and he says it, is it fair to say that this is the mormon church's position on the issue?
More or less what Senojretep said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's no need to officially declare Kimball was mistaken, is there?
When the church concludes that a past President was wrong, I think that, yes, there is a need to declare that he was wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Samp-
Here's an interesting discussion among BYU students in an online forum struggling with the question of how to interpret some of the quotes. At least one of them says he looked back and found the original sources.
Oh wow.
quote: In answer to a similar inquiry which President Lee recently received, he responded as follows:
I was shocked to have you raise the question about ‘oral lovemaking in the genital area among married couples.' Heaven forbid any such degrading activities which would be abhorrent in the sight of the Lord. For any Latter-day Saint, and particularly those who have been taught in the sacred ordinances of the temple, to engage in any kind of perversions of this sacred God-given gift of procreation, would be sure to bring down the condemnation of the Lord whom we would offend were we to engage in any such practice.
This all seems profoundly straightforward.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How about a married man, who is away from his wife, thinking of his wife and missing her...which was what the Episcopalian preacher told me was okay when I was 12.
Let me refer you to my earlier answer to you:
quote:The rationale is that that sex is a holy and sacred thing, and as such, should only be expressed in the proper way. Which is between a husband and wife.
I disagree with what your Episcopalian preacher told you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If the Mormons are anything like the Catholics, doctrine may change over time but admitting that previous Church authority was wrong about something will wait till the apocalypse. Actually, it may cause the apocalypse.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
21.4.4 Birth Control
It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. 21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity
The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.
-----
This is from the current (as of 2010) church handbook of instructions, available online here: http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.4. Usually when they want you not to do something, they are explicit. Not so much about masturbation. I heard a rumor that the brethren tried to come out against anal and oral sex in the 70s-80s, then immediately backed off (presumably due to married couples refusing to go along with it) but that's neither here nor there.
Spencer W. Kimbal was a really great church leader, but he (like everyone before and after him) was a product of his time. If you want to attack what the LDS church teaches, try taking a look at what they teach *now*.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If you want to attack what the LDS church teaches, try taking a look at what they teach *now*.
Indeed. I'm sure you can find plenty to be disgusted at now without having to back in time to find things that current members don't even believe or have any interest in defending. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Spencer W. Kimbal was a really great church leader, but he (like everyone before and after him) was a product of his time. If you want to attack what the LDS church teaches, try taking a look at what they teach *now*.
I'm always kind of bemused by this attitude, as it seems to me that any church which as one of its core points of doctrine includes the ability of its leadership to receive direct answers from God on specific questions should not have to engage in this sort of hedging.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There's no need to officially declare Kimball was mistaken, is there?
When the church concludes that a past President was wrong, I think that, yes, there is a need to declare that he was wrong.
Why?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This all seems profoundly straightforward.
Only because you are a product of your particular frame. You came to this discussion with preconceived notions and you'll leave it with those notions intact. That's fine, it's (largely) the way we work as people. But you might take from the fact that several people around you, who aren't crazy, who function well in the world around them, and who otherwise could be/are your friends have a very different view of this issue. If it were me (and it is, all the time), such an observation would induce a bit of humility about the absolute clarity of my position.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
A church whose doctrine includes the ability of its leadership to receive revelation from God will favor what its current leaders say over its past leaders.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:The rationale is that that sex is a holy and sacred thing, and as such, should only be expressed in the proper way. Which is between a husband and wife.
I agree that it can be holy and sacred, but sometimes it's also just fun, and playful...and that is a good thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those things are not contradictory. Fun and playfulness are not bars to holiness.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
LDS doctrine agrees with you -- it is a good thing, and it's supposed to be pleasurable and enjoyable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean if it came down to it and a member of the church in an interview said, "My sons is masturbating and I'm afraid he'll turn gay because that's what Pres. Kimball said about masturbation." there's probably a good chance the priesthood leader would say something along the lines, "Well he had his opinions on the matter, but they are not gospel."
I know it's a bit confusing but for Mormons, there are some specific circumstances that make something the prophet says, the mind of God on the matter. I haven't seen those circumstances in this instance, it's actually quite rare.
Okay.
now, here's the most important question of them all.
Is there anything you or the rest of the mormons here can point me to — anything at all — that reach this vaunted status of "For sure, God said this" that say clearly that masturbation is unclean/unholy in the eyes of the lord and is not to be committed; it would have to be here, because it's apparently not in scripture:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: m_p_h...I'm not a biblical scholar by any means...is there another, more definitive verse against slapity happity you could furnish us with?
No.
But "things that are clearly taught in the scriptures" is only a subset of what my religion teaches.
...
or are all of the official statements and teachings of the church which involve masturbation pretty much essentially in the exact same boat as these other things, the whole Not Entirely Official tier, where you could say it's equally feasible that the LDS could tacitly drop the whole 'no masturbation' thing (using your prescribed system of not really having to correct the error openly) and have priesthood leaders, when pointed to the statements of church leaders past clearly stating that masturbation is not allowed ...
and say, similarly, "Well he had his opinions on the matter, but they are not gospel."
..?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"When the church concludes that a past President was wrong, I think that, yes, there is a need to declare that he was wrong." Why?
The three big reasons: 1) It clearly communicates that the position of the church is not "X," rather than leaving it ambiguous.
2) It communicates this immediately, rather than relying on new generations of people to not be taught the incorrect belief.
3) It serves as a reminder of the fallibility of church leadership. This reminder isn't necessary for everyone, but there's never any downside to providing such a reminder.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: if the banning of masturbation (and caffeine consumption?) isn't found in your holy scripts, where did it get it's basis?
There isn't a banning of caffeine. The specific proscription is against "hot drink", which does appear in Mormon scripture. The church leadership, which is understood to have authority to specify doctrine beyond what is in scripture by means of revelation have made it clear that "hot drink" refers specifically to coffee and tea.
The proscription against masturbation is derived from more basic principles regarding the purpose and expression of sexuality, the law of chastity, etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It would be much less feasible for LDS to quietly drop the whole 'no masturbation' thing because of the way that church leaders have consistently and openly taught and counseled against masturbation over the last few decades. This was never the case for those other things you brought up.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If the Mormons are anything like the Catholics, doctrine may change over time but admitting that previous Church authority was wrong about something will wait till the apocalypse.
It seems that for a regular person to admit he or she was wrong is generally a rare event.
People sometimes surprise you, though. Maybe it happens even less frequently when it must be done by committee.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The LDS Church rarely releases doctrinal disavowals of statements it didn't make in the first place. In other words, if a Church leader makes a comment about their views on a subject (which may or may not be in-line with the prevailing attitudes in the Church at the time) the Church will not take responsibility for those comments as time passes and they appear (and possibly do) become outdated. I imagine there are two reasons:
1) The Church doesn't have a declared position on a lot of these matters. When I explain my feeling on the morality of oral sex that just impacts myself and my (future) spouse. It's a discussion point. If the LDS Church says something then it becomes a moral position that influences the lives of all of its members. Most issues are left blank, up to the individual to decide. I would imagine that's preferable to most of those here, LDS or no, why would you want the Church to declare a position on something like that?
2) To do so would mean that any comment made any time by any leader (and we have to define what a LDS 'leader' is then too, which can get tricky) basically becomes defacto doctrine until officially renounced. This is almost impossible, even if you're restrictive as to who you'd classify as leaders but even if it were possible, the Church would have to release a position on a great number of topics that I think everyone would prefer it stay out of, not to mention creating so much everyday dogma as to render a lot of people incapable of following it, or focusing on the more important everyday activities like loving your neighbor.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In the case of the Catholic Church, which has been making unquestionable pronouncements on the life, death, and salvation of much of humanity for the past 2000 years, admitting fallibility would mean they had a lot of explaining to do as well as giving up a good portion of power.
I think it is crucial that we do it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hobbes, how is this statement below, quoted above, not "releasing a position?"
"I was shocked to have you raise the question about ‘oral lovemaking in the genital area among married couples.' Heaven forbid any such degrading activities which would be abhorrent in the sight of the Lord. For any Latter-day Saint, and particularly those who have been taught in the sacred ordinances of the temple, to engage in any kind of perversions of this sacred God-given gift of procreation, would be sure to bring down the condemnation of the Lord whom we would offend were we to engage in any such practice."
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Admitting error is a vulnerable place to be in, or at least that is how it often feels. I think it's a brittle strength to hold onto, though, and it makes less of us when we cling to it despite the appropriateness of admission and/or offering apology.
kmboots, I think you point to a theme or trend in the Catholic Church which underlies what makes the practice of many members so different from what is preached. I don't know where that is going, and I don't know how much of it is strength and how much is brittleness. It is the church of my childhood, and at this point almost all I do is stand on the sidelines and watch.
I hope things turn out well, whatever that may mean.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If I said that, or you quoted me saying that, would you consider it the LDS Church releasing a position? Here's a helpful guide (and it's only two pages) that talks about what is and is not doctrine. Basically the statement you quoted above is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to as a leader making a comment in public. It's not at all the same as an official position and the two problems I listed both occur if it is reacted to by the Church officially.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It would be much less feasible for LDS to quietly drop the whole 'no masturbation' thing because of the way that church leaders have consistently and openly taught and counseled against masturbation over the last few decades. This was never the case for those other things you brought up.
Doesn't matter. I see all the mechanisms by which it could be done easily over time, especially with the changing of the guard. The ability to dismiss something as a 'product of the times,' the reminder that we can't really use X, Y, Z as gospel, the tacit let's-just-move-on attitude to the fallibility of past officials, even prophets, it's all there. And masturbation is easy to let go because such a huge quantity of people do it even when taught that it is religiously unacceptable, and that provides its own encouragement for change ...
This is all so fascinating. Really!
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
There is an interesting book about this topic called, "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion" by Thornhill and Palmer.
"According to Thornhill and Palmer, sociobiologists and feminists are wrong in identifying culture as a principal influence over human sexual behavior. Men are by nature more aggressive and, despite society's influence, driven to mate as often and widely as possible. Rape is therefore an evolutionary adaptation, one of many strategies that men use in order to ensure their genetic survival.
The authors further argue that by extension, the pain women experience as a result of rape is also a product of nature. Psychological suffering ensures that women will avoid the conditions that lead to sexual violation so that they will not be wasting resources on offspring of questionable genetic quality."
[ June 17, 2011, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: EarlNMeyer-Flask ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
That's her summary of what is argued in the book, but I don't think it's really the "review" part. The review itself is critical of the text, no?
This is the paragraph preceding the above summary:
quote:Authors Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado, and Randy Thornhill, a biologist at the University of New Mexico, claim to eschew the politics of academia in their attempt to rescue the study of rape from the hands of evolutionary psychologists, sociobiologists, and feminists. But the authors effectively short-circuit their own argument by devoting more energy to attacking their opponents than attempting to prove their theories. Indeed, it is ironic that a book purporting such devotion to science should have so little in it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: I hope things turn out well, whatever that may mean.
I believe they will - but not for a while yet.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Facetious or not, Scott Adam's argument can't be invalidated on that ground since there could still be some truth and good reason to it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:1) It clearly communicates that the position of the church is not "X," rather than leaving it ambiguous.
If the position of the church was never "officially X" the church does not need to "officially change to Y". The fact many people believe, "If the prophet believes X, then it's a safe bet it's what God thinks." is a belief that church has repeatedly discouraged. It does encourage members to pray about positions the leadership of the church say ought to be observed and where God confirms it, that's the end of the matter.
Even if the prophet says, "I would like the members of the church to do X." That does not mean God is commanding it. But it might mean that. Since the prophet is asking the members of the church he presides over to do something, we obey it as members of the church.
quote:2) It communicates this immediately, rather than relying on new generations of people to not be taught the incorrect belief.
But the new position being espoused might be hardly more right than the previous one, and so it is unwise for the church to take a firm position on the matter at all. They are big fans of letting further light and knowledge illuminate the way. It generally does not take a firm stance on things unless many people are genuinely confused about it, it is important people have an answer, and the scriptures do not discuss it.
quote:3) It serves as a reminder of the fallibility of church leadership. This reminder isn't necessary for everyone, but there's never any downside to providing such a reminder.
Members of the church are well aware of the fallibility of church leadership. Nearly the entire upper echelons of this dispensation left within just a few decades of Joseph Smith restoring it. Jesus was betrayed by one of his apostles. I'm sure if you asked Judas to tell you about Jesus towards the end of his ministry he'd give you an ear full, but none of it would be God's truth.
----- Samp: As I indicated to Tom, the leadership of the church has officially indicated that masturbation is not OK, and a member doing it should not go to the temple. As far as I am concerned that means two things.
1: The prophet is instructing members of the church not to masturbate.
2: God has not seen fit to directly tell the church to do anything contrary to these instructions.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: ... Scott Adam's argument can't be invalidated on that ground since ...
I am not following you. On what ground? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They are big fans of letting further light and knowledge illuminate the way.
Seems like, in situations like these, they could JUST ASK GOD. Since the ability to ask God is really the only reason that they're church leaders and not random dudes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They are big fans of letting further light and knowledge illuminate the way.
Seems like, in situations like these, they could JUST ASK GOD. Since the ability to ask God is really the only reason that they're church leaders and not random dudes.
Or they could investigate the matter themselves, that seems to work for so many questions. You have it backwards btw. They are not church leaders because they can ask God. They are church leaders because God has called them to be in those positions, either directly or by agreeing with the choice another leader made to call them.
Anybody in the world can *ask* God questions and get answers.
edit: On this particular issue, I have, and have.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How did God answer you BB?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How did God answer you BB?
What method did God use, or what was the actual answer?
I don't really wish to discuss the former, as to the later, I'll give you the basic answer. No, it makes you a worse person.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How did God answer you BB?
What method did God use, or what was the actual answer?
I don't really wish to discuss the former, as to the later, I'll give you the basic answer. No, it makes you a worse person.
More correctly, it makes YOU a worse person. Personal revelation is given for the person, not universally. That is the significant difference between prophetic revelation and individual revelation.
FWIW, I've come to similar conclusions (for myself) based on the same approach.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Senoj: There is no need to correct my statement, I meant it (specifically the 'you') exactly the way you wrote in your post.
I asked about it, and got an answer for me. I would never use it to instruct others.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I disagree with general thought that tweaking the twizzle stick is bad, I acknowledge that it can be bad, and for those who it is bad for, I honor them for doing what is right, for them.
I agree quite a bit with Marlozhan that sex and masturbation need to be discussed with children, and that they are a big part of our make up as humans.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sorry BB, I just read your statement as being directed to SW, as if you were saying it makes him a worse person. I knew what you meant, I just didn't want SW to misunderstand.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm all good SR...I did ask him what God told him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Senoj: NP, I wasn't annoyed. I don't look down on anybody in this discussion who masturbates.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:heard a rumor that the brethren tried to come out against anal and oral sex in the 70s-80s, then immediately backed off (presumably due to married couples refusing to go along with it) but that's neither here nor there.
The context for this was, I think, the idea on the part of the leadership that no women in their right minds would be "into" such a practice and that therefore their husbands must be compelling them to agree to such practices, which would clearly be a case of unrighteous dominion on the part of the husband. Evidently they got letters from women saying, hey, we're just fine with it, and therefore the policy quietly went away. Having the policy quietly go away, rather than publicly renouncing it, has two beneficial effects for women:
(1) Women who do want to engage in oral/anal can point to the fact that there is no current church teaching on the subject.
(2) Women who don't want to ibid, who are totally disgusted and turned off by it, but are being really pressured into it by jerk husbands, can point to the earlier statement as a way of shutting up the jerks. Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
His argument cannot be invalidated on the ground that it is facetious.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: His argument cannot be invalidated on the ground that it is facetious.
"His" being "Scott Adams'" I take it. (I was thinking you meant the review, and I wasn't sure how they were supposed to fit in that context.)
Thanks for clearing it up for me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The context for this was, I think, the idea on the part of the leadership that no women in their right minds would be "into" such a practice and that therefore their husbands must be compelling them to agree to such practices, which would clearly be a case of unrighteous dominion on the part of the husband. Evidently they got letters from women saying, hey, we're just fine with it, and therefore the policy quietly went away.
That makes so much sense.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
So before if you asked church leadership if oral sex is unacceptable, they would give you the response that it is absolutely unacceptable and god says no.
And now they are quietly trying to abandon it and have changed their minds and positions to 'it is left up to the individuals involved'.
Sounds about right.
This is how it will work for masturbation too, fyi.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As I indicated to Tom, the leadership of the church has officially indicated that masturbation is not OK, and a member doing it should not go to the temple.
So? The leadership of the church had officially indicated that oral sex is not ok and that a member doing that should not go into the temples. And that changed, pretty classically, between the phases of how a church goes from saying something is wrong to saying that it is not wrong. Which is why the question I asked is so important and gives me a sense of the timeframes involved.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Parkour-
I disagree that had Harold B. Lee or Spencer W. Kimball been asked about oral sex either would have said "god says no." Had any of the writings on the subject been phrased that way, I feel it would have been more difficult to change the policy, and would have required something different than simply sending out a follow-up letter rescinding the former statement.
Sam-
I think you're misunderstanding the degree to which masturbation (vice oral sex) has been taught as being wrong within the church. Teaching that masturbation is wrong has been found in manuals, church magazines, conference talks, and other publications. Teachings on oral sex seem to be limited to a few personal correspondences and a letter to Bishops and Stake Presidents. This makes a significant difference.
That said, I fully believe it could change (although I don't believe it will). Doctrines which have been taught significantly more forcefully (polygamy and restriction of Priesthood by ethnicity come to mind) have been changed in the past.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This is a pretty radical view, and after reading it I intuitively thought that there must be logical fallacies in his argument, but I'm having trouble trying to pinpoint what exactly he is wrong about. What do you think about this?
The fallacies are fairly obvious, and have been touched on already. Men are driven to have sex, but that does not mean all men are predisposed to rape (something Adams mentions briefly later on in the entry, but almost as an afterthought). Nor does it mean all men feel the same intensity for those desires. Men also may have natural desires to protect women.
Also, he broadly paints all male urges as dangerous and in need of control, and all female urges as good and beneficial (or at least socially accepted). What about the female urge to attract men they see as superior mates, even if (sometimes especially if) those men are already in a relationship? Also an evolutionary urge, also in need of control.
He's picked a one-sided, straw-man position to fire up controversy. There's no depth to it, or reason. "Men like to hit things, why is assault even a crime?" He's trolling for outrage.
In other thread news: m_p_h answered the question a few pages back. Masturbation is against his religion. Why is anyone still asking about this? He clearly doesn't want to argue about it or defend it. If you really want to know about the Mormon position on the topic, go Google it.
Not to say it can't still be discussed, but I don't see the point in making him today's LDS defense attorney.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I do have a question, that MPH, BB, and others may of course refrain from answering. I really do promise that I do not mean any direspect at all and am asking from a nice place.
How would/does the church respond to LDS members that decide that what a church leader has said is incorrect? In the case that it's not a church proscription, but a private exchange or letter?
Because I've been asked this many times by a friend of mine that has appointed me the LDS defense attorney. I don't merit this title. I'm not LDS. I just have the distinction of not thinking the doctrine inherintly crazy or scary.
He's under the impression that there can be no disagreement or variety of stances on any issue between various members of the LDS church. I'm also relatively certain that he would have very much trouble distinguishing between church doctrine, and what church leaders may say privately. In any case, he also believes that such disagreement is punished by revoking the right to come to temple and such.
I have no idea how to respond, other than "I'm pretty sure you're wrong, or if not wrong, grossly oversimplifying the issue," and have repeatedly recommended that he ask actual mormons about it, or do more than a cursory google search that serves no purpose but to comfirm his beliefs. But, upon further reflection, I fear that he's too crass to engage in actual conversation with people that he believes are "scary."
In any case, in the instance that this comes up in conversation, I would very much like to dispel incorrect assumptions. Because though I don't believe there's any persuading this particular person, he's got a bit of a following of underclassman, and I'd rather that they not be unduly convinced by him.
In any case, I'm terribly sorry if I've been presumptuous. And, also, if this seems like a small blip, and not something or somebody worth engaging, I'll understand if you don't wish to engage this particular topic.
I also understand if you're wary of speaking more of LDS beliefs in this particular thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As far as going to the temple, you have to be able to say that yes, you sustain the current top leadership of the church as prophets. If you disagree in such a way that you're still able to honestly say "yes" to the question, it shouldn't keep you out of the temple.
There have been cases of people being excommunicated for teaching or publicly speaking out in opposition to the church leadership or their counsel/teachings, but all I know about those situations is hearsay. It's virtually impossible to learn about any of the specifics, as the church never comments on disciplinary actions against members, and those excommunicated naturally tend to have a bone to pick afterward at least.
So, while we put a lot of emphasis on following the [current] prophet, there's a lot of room for disagreement without any official repercussions. As to how "kosher" different disagreements are, well, you'll find a lot of disagreement on that as well.
I happen to disagree with some of the decisions that the church leadership has made in how some of the church programs are run. When the topic comes up, I haven't been shy in stating my opinion. But even though I disagree with the decision made, I still abide by it. After all, it wasn't my decision to make.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
So, context of statements from top prophets are *really* important, I assume.
Alright. Cool. Makes sense. Thank you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
From the church's first days after Joseph Smith established it, people have been perplexed by the supposed dichotomy of a prophet saying things that are not from God.
There are stories of people leaving the church after seeing Joseph Smith wrestle (as a competative sport, not the other way) with men, or because he cussed, or because he was outspoken about his political views, and they thought that meant God wanted to free the slaves (one of his views). Many people want/wanted a radio to God in Joseph Smith, and in all subsequent prophets. That sort of approach has always been dicey at best, as no scriptures preport to be every word any prophet said.
edit: Further, prophets are certainly a method God uses to reveal his opinions on things, but to be honest, with how much prophetic councel we already have, and with the basic tenets of the gospel already layed out, I think many of the gaps that still need to be filled in can be filled in by the individual as he goes about his/her life.
double edit: This isn't to say all that will be said has been said, but rather I should expect that if God does have an announcement for the entire church, it would be very unsual and significant in nature, not something along the lines of, "Vote this way" or "I don't like illegal immigration".
[ June 20, 2011, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm going to re-reference (is that re-redundant?) my link from above: a good little guide on what actually counts as doctrine. It might read a little evasive but the truth is that new doctrine or Church positions aren't really that common, so a format for revealing truly new information isn't fully formed. On the practical side of tings, when the Church wants to make an official change there are two main ways which normally work in tandem.
Maybe best with an example. On the very small end, a few years ago the Church asked that speakers in Sacrament not tell the audience to follow along with them in the scripture (presumably due to the extra distraction). A letter was sent to all the wards (to the Bishops of each congregation) and they read it to the congregation. This was obviously a very small bit of new information, and regarded only practice rather than a revelation. Thus the letter read in sacrament meeting was the long and short of it. I'm not aware of a method by which you can find any of these announcements online. Some of these letters are appended to the end of the The Church Handbook of Instructions which is given to every Bishop (and anyone 'above' a Bishop ecclesiastically) but that's not available for public consumption and is hardly complete anyways.
When it was announced that Black members of the Church could hold the Priesthood a letter was sent to each ward as described above. Then when the next General Conference was held (a meeting held in Salt Lake City that is broadcast to Churches across the world every six months) that same letter was read to the Church as a whole and then 'sustained' by the body of the Church. This was on the complete other end of the spectrum in importance from my first example. Here the entire Church was made aware of it, and it was made an official part of LDS doctrine, even added into the scriptures.
Though that second process is hardly used, these are pretty well established. What gets confusing is when things are of indeterminate importance and get partial exposure. Having information or instruction placed in The Church Handbook of Instruction, placed in manuals available to the Church as a whole, given in talks in General Conference, etc... Other than, perhaps, the first none of these really makes it official, but it does make it current Church policy. How official that makes it is up to personal interpretation. In general when the Church is unclear on a position it's a matter of lesser importance. Not the issue itself but the moral or doctrinal implications. Though that's opinion.
As Porter mentioned, the key when it comes to moral issues is really the Temple Recommend interview, if that can be 'passed' (if the result says one is worthy to attend the Temple) then the rest is not unimportant, but the Church is likely to have little to say about it. The questions are, for the most part, vague and open to personal interpretation. Which allows the members to determine their own worthiness. Certain acts (such as adultery) have clear pronouncements, but something like oral sex does not. It is left up to the individual to decide what it means. This has been true long before the referenced comments above were made as well as after. Occasionally a question may be added to the Temple Recommend questions for a specific region. The only example I'm personally aware of was a region that was infamous for their anti-government stance: a question was added to make sure they paid their income tax (if not, no Temple). It's pretty rare.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. That's interesting. If you were in armed rebellion against your government, could you still hold a recommend?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Not if your government is the United States. In general the Church supports its members following the rules of the government they're under, which included members behind the iron curtain back in the day. However, I don't know how they handle things like legitimate rebellions. If you're referring to insurrections that amount to 20 families in a compound with machine guns and a lot of canned goods then no.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I should note in this vein that if you're convicted of a felony and currently under penalty for it (i.e. in jail or on probation/parole) you're also not a current TR holder. You should be in good standing with your secular leaders basically, which is why the question of a true rebellion is interesting, I'd love to hear from anyone that knows the answer.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You didn't have to, and you did.![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)